[Aillas]

I want to get a pair of cheap(ish) bang for your buck cans that handle pretty much every genre of music and have a low impedance (which makes them suitable for use with portable devices). The Creative Aurvana Live!s and Audio Technica ATH-M50s seem to fit the bill. But which of the two, in your opinion, sound better? Sound, after all, is what matters most when it comes to headphones.
 
I've heard that the ATH-M50s are a little on the bright side which is making me lean more towards the CAL!s right now.
 

 
I plan on getting both pairs eventually, but I'd like to get the better pair first.

 

[Supertoaster]

The M50's are built better but that's all I really know, sorry.

 

[blackcoffeex1]

I have both, and the M50s are indeed much more sparkly in the treble. I'm not particularly treble sensitive though, so I prefer the M50s because I find that they have better clarity and instrument separation. I also like the tuning better, I listen to almost everything and sometimes the bass in the CAL!s seem to muffle other parts of the spectrum. My humble impressions in a nutshell:
 
CAL!s:
- Bigger and better soundstage
- More bass quantity
- More portable because of the cable (Keep in mind that I have the straight cable M50s though. I braided it thinking it would help, but it's still more transportable than portable)
- More comfortable
- Nicer with vocals
- Seems more fragile
 
M50s:
- More treble energy and sparkle
- Tamer and more precise bass
- Somewhat recessed midrange
- Closer to a neutral sound signature
- Do well with almost all genres I've tried with them
- Tank-like build quality
- Fold for easier transport
 
Really, which one will be better for you comes down to preference.

 

[Aillas]

Quote:

I have both, and the M50s are indeed much more sparkly in the treble. I'm not particularly treble sensitive though, so I prefer the M50s because I find that they have better clarity and instrument separation. I also like the tuning better, I listen to almost everything and sometimes the bass in the CAL!s seem to muffle other parts of the spectrum. My humble impressions in a nutshell:
 
CAL!s:
- Bigger and better soundstage
- More bass quantity
- More portable because of the cable (Keep in mind that I have the straight cable M50s though. I braided it thinking it would help, but it's still more transportable than portable)
- More comfortable
- Nicer with vocals
- Seems more fragile
 
M50s:
- More treble energy and sparkle
- Tamer and more precise bass
- Somewhat recessed midrange
- Closer to a neutral sound signature
- Do well with almost all genres I've tried with them
- Tank-like build quality
- Fold for easier transport
 
Really, which one will be better for you comes down to preference.

 
Great response; thanks.
 
I guess I'll go with the CAL!s as I'm a little treble sensitive and want something comfortable.

 

[Ditti]

You won't go wrong either but I'm all for the CALs. I just can't find anything quite as satisfying for the money. I've got them both.

 

[supersleuth]

Based on having tried the similar Denon D1001 I don't think the CAL would be a good all-rounder. The Denon is mediocre for classical music (and does a particularly unconvincing job with piano tone- "mushy" is the best adjective I can come up with for that.) That would also likely be the case for other acoustic genres such as jazz.

 

[blackcoffeex1]

Quote:

Based on having tried the similar Denon D1001 I don't think the CAL would be a good all-rounder. The Denon is mediocre for classical music (and does a particularly unconvincing job with piano tone- "mushy" is the best adjective I can come up with for that.) That would also likely be the case for other acoustic genres such as jazz.

I have to agree with you on these points, which is why I prefer the M50s. But with treble sensitivity I think OP will be happier with the CAL!s if . Also, I'm not sure how much listening they'll be doing with acoustic music. The CAL!s do great with most modern type genres. Both cans are great though.

 

[silvernoy]

the CAL have rather poor isolation so you may want to take that into consideration. 

 

[postrock]

Quote:

Based on having tried the similar Denon D1001 I don't think the CAL would be a good all-rounder. The Denon is mediocre for classical music (and does a particularly unconvincing job with piano tone- "mushy" is the best adjective I can come up with for that.) That would also likely be the case for other acoustic genres such as jazz.

 
Quote:

I have to agree with you on these points, which is why I prefer the M50s. But with treble sensitivity I think OP will be happier with the CAL!s if . Also, I'm not sure how much listening they'll be doing with acoustic music. The CAL!s do great with most modern type genres. Both cans are great though.

I just wanted to chime in that I find the Denon D1001 to be my favorite all-rounder. Just shows how subjective it is. I think they sound fantastic with all genres and "mushy" is an adjective I would never use for them. They may not be the brightest phones around but they are by no means "dark" or overly warm sounding either. They are also one of the most comfortable and least fatiguing phones I've ever used. So...I can't speak of the CAL!, but I'm hoping to include them in my next roundup review.

 

[Aillas]

Just curious, people: How much did the D1001s retail for?
 
 
Quote:

I just wanted to chime in that I find the Denon D1001 to be my favorite all-rounder. Just shows how subjective it is. I think they sound fantastic with all genres and "mushy" is an adjective I would never use for them. They may not be the brightest phones around but they are by no means "dark" or overly warm sounding either. They are also one of the most comfortable and least fatiguing phones I've ever used. So...I can't speak of the CAL!, but I'm hoping to include them in my next roundup review.

 
Thanks for your response. I agree that headphones seem to be very subjective.
 
I'm very sensitive to highs which is primarily why I think I'd prefer the CAL!s/D1001s to the M50s. And I'm sure the CAL!s don't lack brightness to the point that they sound muddy. But even if they are a bit on the muddy side, I'd take muddiness over brightness any day because muddiness doesn't hurt my ears while brightness -- even a somewhat moderate amount of it -- does.

 

[postrock]

Quote:

Just curious, people: How much did the D1001s retail for?
 
 
 
Thanks for your response. I agree that headphones seem to be very subjective.
 
I'm very sensitive to highs which is primarily why I think I'd prefer the CAL!s/D1001s to the M50s. And I'm sure the CAL!s don't lack brightness to the point that they sound muddy. But even if they are a bit on the muddy side, I'd take muddiness over brightness any day because muddiness doesn't hurt my ears while brightness -- even a somewhat moderate amount of it -- does.

When they were available they ran about $100-$125. So that makes the CAL! a pretty good value. I should point out that the D1001 is supremely comfortable and has buttery soft pleather on the earpads. I'm not sure if the CAL! is as good or if the build quality is on a par.

 

[captainbrendo]

I don't think that I'd recommend the aurvanas.... I've had my denon 1001's for a few years, and recabled them.  At first I really liked the sound, but now I find them very 'boxy' sounding and unatural.  I need to apply some pretty serious EQ to get these things to make music sound right to my ears.  Granted I am comparing my cans to my DT880s which isn't exactly fair.  In any case, I think that the SR60 still one ups the 1001's.  I'm being harsh because my little $40 brainwavz m1 sounds waaaay better than the 1001.  

 

[Emospence]

The CAL!s are great sounding for their price but have poor isolation, not to mention the M50s are way more solid..
 
I'd take the M50 route

 

[Pedro Oliveira]

Hi guys...
 
Sorry to bother but i am in a dilema here... Here's the deal... I love all types of music but i a lean a little bit towards EDM. Love House, Prog Houde, Prog Tance and Trance, especially the last two genres.
 
Hi already have 2 pairs of Headphones, the AKG K518JB (all black) and the AKG K514 MK2. The 518 are not bad, but they are not really my thing, to much bass and a muffled and dark sound because tha bass covers and ruins everything else. The 514 are good for quite listening but they sound kind of tiny and have almost no bass.
 
So what i really want is a pair of cans for home use thats has good clarity, a good but precise bass, but most important of all very good and sparkly treble for the uplifting trance (for example yesterday i was listening to anjunabeats volume 10 with my k518 and the bass just ***** everything up).
 
The CAL! and M50 have been recomended. I was leaning towards the CAL! since i dont watt to spend much and since the CAL!'s have amazing reviews.
Although i also saw thar the CAL! have a little overpowering bass, so i am afraid that if i get this i will end up with a pair similar to my 518's and completely opposed to what i am searching.
 
The M50 also have amazing review and people say the treble in this really shines, but does it shine really that much to the point of costing twice as meuch as the CAL's?
 
As i said i dont want to spend much money... I know the M50's are much more better built than the aurvana's but since i am using them at home (neither of them are very good for street use, so that's why i will keep my 518's) that soes not really matter.
 
So... Soundwise, wich ones do you think will be more suitable for my likings? I am leaning towards the Aurvana for 60 euros but if they have "dark" sound and no good highs i will try to wait a little longer and give 120 for the m50's (although i really did not wish to spend that much...  )
 
 
Please help me guys...
 
 
Thank you...

 

[Seekky]

Get the S500+ATH pleather pads instead..